In this episode, Nicky and Joe talk about the difference between metagaming and immersion. We tend to focus on the mechanical side of the phenomena, but we give examples of games that facilitate either. Mostly, we’re giving you our perspective of the perennial debate!

The problem with the discussions that compare and contrast meta-gaming and immersive games is the expectation that there is a conclusive answer what is better on a cost-benefit type scale. The answer is whatever floats your boat. The friction chaffs when a player tries to meta-game other players around the tabletop into a validation of his or her definition of RPG joy. If the players, and the DM is also a player, are fine with immersion or meta-game or both styles at the table then there is no worry.

If the style of play goes against the gaming contract (or “player expectations” if it is implicit and not part of a session 1 explicit out-of-character discussion panel), then big problems will arise within the group. Either style can result in player engrossment but together, at the same table with different player expectations, the clash of these styles can destroy the shared fantasy and personal joy of tabletop.

It also depends on how extreme the players enforce one style over another. Is character generation that has players roll 3D6 six times and allows them to arrange the rolls to their taste on the character sheet meta-gaming? It could be if you want to max Dexterity for character win. A clumsy thief could be just as successfully immersive to play as a min-max build. Few people would think meta-gaming occurs on the initial dice roll however.

Essentially meta-gaming takes Bob the character sheet and makes him into Aragorn the last king because a player wants to play Aragorn. Bob may not want (or have the ability) to go adventuring. It is the player who wants to go raiding and equips and outfits Bob as Aragorn. This may sound ridiculous because Bob is not a real person with free will and Aragorn is an imaginary character built upon an illusion of the player but this is just the tone of the discussion I observe surrounding the meta-gaming vs immersion arguments.

When Gygax wrote the AD&D DMG, 1978, there was no separation between player and player character. Thus, no meta-gaming! Bob, Aragorn and the player were all one and the same person. Player knowledge was player character knowledge. The Preface to the DMG is paraphrased: do not let the players read this book and penalize them for bringing it to the table. Gygax admonishes DMs to avoid building a meta-game-able wall between player and player character through the management of information at the table… but then indiscriminately sells rulebooks to unlicensed DMs at retail outlets across the country. It is ironic.

But “Rule 0” means is the game is the DM’s creation not the creation of Gary Gygax. And when Gary DM’d, the game was the creation of Gary Gygax and not the writing in his own rulebooks. This occult gaming of hidden knowledge fosters immersion.

Many factors stack onto an immersion style that satisfies its players, which do not appear in successful meta-gaming: a higher degree of tabletop communication, inter-player trust, the rule of consistency, the permission to learn as you go/playtest, and collaborative fantasy. The meta-game relies on rules over player initiatives (to make rulings) and the game within the game is how to manipulate the rules (including House Rules).

This returns me to my original observation that meta-gaming can occur at character generation and that many of us, both meta-gamers and immersion enthusiasts, may not be entirely pure in our practice of either style. The fact we are aware changes it, kind of like the uncertainty principle.